On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 09:37:34AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
That doesn't explain why it shipped alongside
gnome-volume-control for
the last three releases, when all along you have been telling us that
shipping two graphical volume control utilities by default is a terrible
idea that will confuse people and is bad UI.
You appear to be arguing on the assumption that people never make
mistakes.
And, I really should have anticipated your reaction. Of *course* the
correct response to me pointing out that we're already shipping two
volume control applications by default and have been for a while with no
apparent problems is not to accept that this means it's probably a
perfectly good idea to have multiple applications so long as they each
expose important functionality that the other doesn't. No, the correct
response is to say that we should immediately drop one to maintain
ideological purity.
How many volume control applications do you want us to ship with? The
fact that mistakes have been made in the past is not an argument for
further mistakes being made in the future.
I mean...sheesh. Are you serious? We should drop pavucontrol because
including it is an 'oversight'? Despite the fact that, as I pointed out,
gnome-volume-control has no profile support and hence you can only use
pavucontrol to switch from analog to digital output, or from analog
stereo to analog surround? And even *Lennart* advocates using it this
way, in various bug reports?
Presumably none of your 'target users' has an S/PDIF output either? Or
an analog surround sound setup?
This is just getting ridiculous.
At this point? My personal feeling is that you're being needlessly
hostile and appear to be assuming the worst of the desktop people. Can
we get back to discussing this rationally rather than simply making
observations and turning them into assertions?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org